Questions for The Board-NCSG meeting

[nhklein]

Thanks, Avri, for the preparation.

I think it might be helpful to change the order: Make Item 1 the last 
one, and move 2 and 3 up.

Why do I think so? The Board may be focusing much on what is now Item 1, 
with 4 sub-items (Board-GAC is the Board's business), and the time of 
the meeting may be gone when you reach Item 2, where "we" (well, I think 
so) are more directly concerned and involved and affected. The the 
present Item 3 is also close to our concern to see that ICANN is 
faithful to all regions and situations of its membership.

And then only deal with what is now Item 1 - where the Board may have 
already its positions, and will explain and justify them for us.

Just some ideas,


Norbert

=



On 06/12/2011 10:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> There have been no comments on the wording question so these are the ones that I pan to send to the Board tomorrow morning EST.  Pleas let me know of any last comments.
>
> Thanks
> a.
>
>
> ----
>
> On 27 May 2011, at 16:43, Diane Schroeder wrote:
>
>> If you could submit three topics/issues on which they would like the Board's view – the Board will also send three topics to the constituency on which they would like the constituency's view.  Please send these to me to coordinate.
>
> The NCSG took a poll from among 8 possible questions and came up with a Stakeholder preference for following three issues as our contribution to the planned conversation between the Board and the NCSG.
>
> 1.   How does the increase role of the GAC affect the multistakeholder balance.
>
> - How does the Board weighs GAC advice in relation to  GNSO recommendations, the CWG work and community comment on the implementation in the by-laws mandated process.
> - How well does the current GAC model mesh with the ICANN bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development processes?
> - Are there any specific areas of tension between the two, and if so how can these be managed?
> - What specific steps could be taken to promote better communication&  coordination, given GAC's professed constraints with respect to collective and individual government participation in multistakeholder processes?  Can the Board see government representatives becoming more integrated in this model? If so, how?
>
> 2.   New Constituency Process and the NCSG charter
>
> While understanding that the NCSG Stakeholder Group charter is waiting on the approval of the standardized New  Constituency process recommended by the Structural Improvements Committee, we would like to understand what issues, if any, may be blocking Board approval of both the New Constituency Process and the NCSG Stakeholder Group charter.
>
> 3. ICANN engagement with developing and transitional countries
>
> How can ICANN enhance its engagement with developing and transitional countries?  What procedural/institutional improvements could be envisioned to increase the effective participation of governments and other stakeholders from these countries?  How can we increase the development-sensitivity of ICANN policy outputs, including but not only with respect to new gTLD applicant support?
>
> The NCSG looks forward to receiving notice of the 3 issues the Board will be contributing to the discussion.  We also look forward to our meeting and send best wishes for everyones safe travel to Singapore.
>
> signed


-- 
Since 3 April 2011, The Mirror with reports and comments from Cambodia - originally since 1997 based on daily translations from the Khmer language press, is now only an archive of the past.

But I started a new blog:

...thinking it over... after 21 years in Cambodia
http://www.thinking21.org/

continuing to share reports and comments from Cambodia.

Norbert Klein
nhklein at gmx.net
Phnom Penh / Cambodia